> RAID has some possible uses nowadays. Sure. Let's see if we can recap. > > 1. Those with just a little money or those with a lot of money generally > find that the risk associated with "hardware RAID" is not worth the > expense. The small benefit from a possible disk drive failure is far > outweighed by the huge risk from a RAID controller failure or any related > hardware failure that makes the RAID disks useless. (Just try taking the > RAID disk drives out of one machine and putting them in a new one.)
Sorry, but my direct experience is the exact opposite. Enormous benefit from RAID controllers: low risk from controller failure, much higher for drive failure. > 2. New computers spec'ed to just act as a NAS or database server are pretty > darn inexpensive. You don't need lots of RAM or fast CPU as a rule (as > always, YMMV). Because of this, in most cases it makes more sense today to > duplicate storage on multiple disks and computers - not just multiple disks > in one computer. Again, if you do the cost-benefit analysis, you have > started moving away from RAID in one machine. Cost-to-benefit analysis? Do I just start throwing away servers? How much sunk cost do you abandon to satisfy a supposed best practice (according to whom?)? Do you know of any business that is able to implement best practices in every environment? I don't disagree with the theory, but I believe you are vastly oversimplifying the implementation and the resources needed. You are also neglecting to take into account the difference in the space (and hardware) needed to house the equivalent number of computers that would replace one file or db server. Let's assume a conservative 3-1 ratio for replacing servers with smaller computers. I know I don't have the capacity for 90+ computers in my small-ish server room. I suspect the BTU output would be significantly higher as well, requiring more cooling. Then there are the resources need for the care and feeding of at least 3 times the numbers of machines. Sleep is over-rated anyway. > 3. Large installations, like Google Ad-Sense, go ahead and use > software-RAID (for increased reliability and portability) on the distributed > computers. Yes, Google. 'Nuf said. John, I really think that you've been at Mitre for so long that you don't have any idea of what conditions are like for smaller organizations, especially in non-profits. I'm lucky to get the money to replace desktops right now. We're going to have to just agree to disagree on RAID. ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
